The Tradeoffs of Second Life

The reading assignment about Second Life is unusual because of the views expressed in the reading. The first time through the reading I started to think that Second Life was great because of all the opportunities presented to the players. I then quickly realized this was because the article did not discuss any of the negatives or drawbacks. The article was very biased in this sense, because it did not even bother to employ the “they say, I say” form of argument. I can think of many scenarios when this game can be good for a person, but I can also imagine many more that the person becomes worse off as a result. An example of how this game can be used for benefit would be someone that deals with discrimination or cruelty on an everyday basis. They may be disabled and unable to do the things that others take for granted. When they log into Second Life they are free to do all those things and are just the same as everyone else, which is what they want. They can achieve a sense of acceptance in this game when in real life they do not always have that opportunity because of their physical or mental disability. That good example can be outweighed by many negative examples; specifically how a person basically destroys the potential they have by obsessing with this game. They lose control of their ability to improve themselves, by choice, and this is unfortunate because this causes them to disconnect from reality. This game can be good for certain individuals, but it is much worse for a larger group of individuals because of all they lose by becoming overwhelmed with this game.

Alter Ego

The character that I will be writing on is the one created by Lui Da that exists in World of Warcraft. This is because I find this person very interesting, in terms of his entire outlook in life. It may not be fair to judge him based off of only two paragraphs in this book, but his statements are strong and very telling of the impact that virtual worlds have on a person in their real life. He basically says that this virtual reality is his life because it takes up most of his time and he has no other hobbies. His only care in life is this game, so much so that he does not even bother to think about the future or care about it. This relates to the concept of freedom as growth because he is unable to grow as a person in this situation. He is trapped in this virtual way of thinking, by choice, and cannot improve himself as a person in this scenario. He does not make much money and will not if he continues this trend. This is why I think that people obsessed with this mindset are pathetic to a certain extent; because they waste any actual talents they have. This person may be really smart or talented at something that could be actually useful, but he does not care because this computer game takes precedence to everything. He is not free to grow as an individual by choice and this is an unfortunate situation. There may be benefits to playing a game like this, but the negatives are so severe that they outweigh any possible positives. Enjoyment with a computer game or virtual reality is one thing, but obsession is another that destroys any actual potential that a person can offer to society. He realizes the fact that thinking is not necessary in this game or actual lifestyle, but he chooses to accept and embrace this mindset, which is sad.

Privacy in Advertising

The article describing the ideas behind RealAge is interesting, but not unique because many companies are doing the same thing in order to create money. Money drives all of these decisions and often times this crosses over into a person’s desire for privacy. The idea is that a person’s confidential information is being exploited by companies that want to sell them products that should appeal to them. They would be appealing because the confidential information is analyzed to determine an appropriate marketing technique. I have a personal interest in this idea of advertising and marketing because I know how a television company views this scenario. They have the idea of using information about a customer’s preference of channels and convert that information into advertisements that they would most likely respond favorably to. This initially seems like a good idea, but the concept of privacy is infringed upon because the television company is using their potentially sensitive information as a means to generate more money from them. The company recognizes this dilemma and that is why they are still determining the appropriate course of action, but there is little doubt that this form of advertising will appear in the near future in some capacity. There is too much money to make for these companies not to explore these opportunities, not to mention the fact that competition will drive companies to out perform the other. If one company is content with resting on their morals and ethics they are going to miss out on profit margins and may be forced to shutdown as a result. This dog eat dog mentality explains almost every business decision and explains why all of them tend to test the limits of what is acceptable and appropriate.

Alter Ego

I have been reading Alter Ego for a while now.  As mentioned in the assignment turned in, I have read a little at a time throughout the semester.  There are a few things that come to mind when I am reading these individually unique situation.  When someone is handicapped physically but not mentally, I really think that this is a perfect escape for them.  I hate that our society is like this, but is a guy really going to like it if a girl in a wheelchair comes up to them at bar and wants to buy him a drink?  Or is a girl really going to like it if a disabled guy does this?  The brutal truth is, probably not.  This is extremely unfortunate and, to be honest, it is very unfair and makes me upset that this is how humans work in this world.  Moreover, it is what it is.  If a physically handicapped person wants to live his or her life almost completely online, then I have no problem with it at all.  One the other hand, if someone who is a very normal physical human being, being addicted to these games could really hinder them from other experiences that the world has to offer.   Human interaction is a huge part of life, and the more comfortable you are with it, the easier life becomes.  If one of these gamers doesn’t open themselves up to the life that the offline world has for them, then many opportunities could be missed.

Cyber relationships

I was very intrigued by the conversation we had in class the other day that broached the question, "If you walked in on our significant other having "avatar sex" with another avatar, would you consider that cheating?" My first reaction was no, that would not constitute as cheating because it's not a real sexual interaction - a sexual encounter between two virtual characters in a virtual world would be virtual sex, thus not real. With more thought, though, I began to think differently. If my significant other was having a relationship with another avatar in second life, that would signify to me that they were unsatisfied with the relationship they were currently in and thus turning elsewhere to satisfy a desire. Though it is in a virtual world, it is the same as if they were to turn to another person and have a real affair with them. Whether or not there is an actual physical connection, the intent of turning to someone else to fulfill a desire that is not being satiated in the real world relationship constitutes as cheating. Consequently, I also believe that "dating," someone in second life is also a form of cheating because again, it is forming a relationship with someone else. Even though it may seem removed because the avatar creatures do not look like real humans, there is always a person behind every avatar. Some equate virtual sex with watching pornography, believing that both are not forms of cheating, but I also disagree with this statement because of the fact that there is a person behind the other avatar, whereas pornography is just a film. This leads me to believe that people playing second life need to be very careful not to blur the lines of what is real and what is virtual, because your actions in second life can impact your real life.

Avaitars and self-determination

Reading "Alter Ego" was an eye-opening experience for me, and ultimately contradicted some of the preconceived notions that I had about avatars and virtual worlds. While I still think that people need to remember that it is a game and not reality, I found that creating an avatar and playing second life can create a sense of freedom and self-determination in those who do not, and possibly can not, experience such freedom in the "real" world. For Jason Rowe, a man with severe physical disabilities that renders him unable to live an active life, the creation of an avatar allows him to do outrageous things like “ride an Imperial speeder bike [or] fight monsters,” but also to do the things that many take for granted, like “hang out with friends at a bar” (Cooper). His avatar not only gives him physical freedom and independence from his disability, but also gives him the freedom to get to know people, and for them to get to know him, without his looks dictating the direction of the relationship. As Rurouni Kenshin, he has control and does not have to let the judgments of others, nor his disability, determine his life. Similarly, Young Ki-Jang has greater freedom in his life as his avatar, Knight Lummis. When he assumes the life of his online character, he is in control of his destiny – “the path forward is up to [him]” (Cooper). He is not held back by his socioeconomic background or his education or the status of his parents, but rather is at the steering wheel of a life he created. The freedom that Young Ki-Jang experiences when playing with his avatar truly embodies that of self-determination – if he works hard and plays well, he will undoubtedly succeed, something that is not guaranteed in the “real world.” Online living grants him complete freedom from constraints that hold him back in the real world.

Thou Shall Not Cheat

This has a very different meaning in our society where the lines between virtual and reality are screwed. The article “Is a virtual affair real-world infidelity?” brought about an intriguing class debate about cyber sex. I agree with most of the class that this kinky virtual sex is weird. I personally can not understand how a person would consider this entertainment but this isn’t a debate about hobbies. The issue involves the reaction to cyber sex. If your spouse was engaging in cyber sex, how would that make you feel? First, I would think my significant other was very strange and I would probably have to reconsider the relationship. Regarding the issue of cheating, I would say yes. It is cheating if this cyber sex enthusiast is engaging in real intimate, sexual, personal, and emotional feelings with someone else. Engaging in any exchange of intimate and romantic feelings with someone other than your significant other is cheating. You are betraying the trust of your loved one. If anything, this type of engagement should show they cyber sex enthusiast that the person they are with is not fulfilling their needs thus they should terminate the relationship. I would normally agree that the virtual world is not a real place but if these interactions are actually producing real emotions then one must consider the effects of the virtual relationships in the real world. In conclusion, I do not consider the virtual world as reality. Those who do engage in the virtual in ways that induce intense emotions are, I hope, in a rare bred. When cyber sex is inducing romantic emotions it is cheating, plain and simple. An individual must decide whether this characteristic in a person is something they can tolerate.

The Fear of False Identity

One aspect that I have noticed about society is the fear of false identity. In the 19th century, there existed a fear of false identity (I am taking a English course called 19th Century Crime Literature). This was due to the fact that there was not a way to identify a person unless you knew them. Identification cards and social security numbers did not exist. This also had economic issues. Checks were written on the basis of the notoriety of the person or the person’s name. Now, we have identification cards, social security numbers, passports, authorizations, background checks etc. to differentiate people from each other. We have secured many ways of our lives from locks on our doors to bank accounts. Identity theft is a crime that many have been prosecuted for. I find that people are uncomfortable for virtual world interactions because the identity of a person can be altered. I, Kristina Griffin, 22 year old female from San Diego, CA can easily become Jerry Mathias 64 year old male from Columbus, OH. As in the 19th Century, people are uncomfortable with the unknown identities of people. This is why I believe people are afraid of virtual tools like SecondLife but not afraid of Facebook. In SecondLife, profiles can be completely fabricated. Facebook profiles are supposed to an accurate representation of the users. In class discussions, many have assumed those participating in virtual worlds such as SecondLife are freaks. In some instances, I would agree but definitely not in all. I believe the root cause for this resistance is society’s fear of false identities.

Freedom in the Virtual World

The discussions regarding the avatars in Alter Ego had a common thread of freedom. Remember, however, that positive freedom and negative freedom do exist. Freedom, as means of freedom of constraints, is understood in these situations. Online characters and avatars allow the owners to pursue anything that is possible in the virtual world. These actions include cyber sex, flying, interacting, and creating. These actions may not be possible for people in the real world. As it was said in class, the virtual would is makes things possible for the disabled in the real world. Those who are physically disabled in the real world are able to fly in the virtual. Those who have social disability can achieve equality in the virtual world. Does the virtual world provide a freedom as growth? The video shown about how many hours a day can be spent playing these games online may disprove freedom as growth. If this interaction with these games hinders this person’s interactions in the real world then freedom as growth is not achieved. However, some gamers are using these games in a way that can be freedom as growth. Lucy Winkett, a precentor, uses her avatar to spread the word of God. This is means, in a free culture, of distribution. Does freedom exist in the virtual world? Yes, its does and gamers have reaped the benefits of the freedom. Too much of a good thing can become a problem. Extreme cases should not generalize for the group. Freedom in the virtual world is possible and should be seen as positive for those who engage in it safely.

Freedom in the Virtual World

The discussions regarding the avatars in Alter Ego had a common thread of freedom. Remember, however, that positive freedom and negative freedom do exist. Freedom, as means of freedom of constraints, is understood in these situations. Online characters and avatars allow the owners to pursue anything that is possible in the virtual world. These actions include cyber sex, flying, interacting, and creating. These actions may not be possible for people in the real world. As it was said in class, the virtual would is makes things possible for the disabled in the real world. Those who are physically disabled in the real world are able to fly in the virtual. Those who have social disability can achieve equality in the virtual world. Does the virtual world provide a freedom as growth? The video shown about how many hours a day can be spent playing these games online may disprove freedom as growth. If this interaction with these games hinders this person’s interactions in the real world then freedom as growth is not achieved. However, some gamers are using these games in a way that can be freedom as growth. Lucy Winkett, a precentor, uses her avatar to spread the word of God. This is means, in a free culture, of distribution. Does freedom exist in the virtual world? Yes, its does and gamers have reaped the benefits of the freedom. Too much of a good thing can become a problem. Extreme cases should not generalize for the group. Freedom in the virtual world is possible and should be seen as positive for those who engage in it safely.

Freedom in the Virtual World

The discussions regarding the avatars in Alter Ego had a common thread of freedom. Remember, however, that positive freedom and negative freedom do exist. Freedom, as means of freedom of constraints, is understood in these situations. Online characters and avatars allow the owners to pursue anything that is possible in the virtual world. These actions include cyber sex, flying, interacting, and creating. These actions may not be possible for people in the real world. As it was said in class, the virtual would is makes things possible for the disabled in the real world. Those who are physically disabled in the real world are able to fly in the virtual. Those who have social disability can achieve equality in the virtual world. Does the virtual world provide a freedom as growth? The video shown about how many hours a day can be spent playing these games online may disprove freedom as growth. If this interaction with these games hinders this person’s interactions in the real world then freedom as growth is not achieved. However, some gamers are using these games in a way that can be freedom as growth. Lucy Winkett, a precentor, uses her avatar to spread the word of God. This is means, in a free culture, of distribution. Does freedom exist in the virtual world? Yes, its does and gamers have reaped the benefits of the freedom. Too much of a good thing can become a problem. Extreme cases should not generalize for the group. Freedom in the virtual world is possible and should be seen as positive for those who engage in it safely.

Consumer Panopticon

In one of the readings we did for Hull, he talked about this idea of target advertising. The idea is that companies could watch what you buy and target you by sending you mail and advertisements for upcoming sales. This idea seems great but it has its disadvantages. First off I like the idea of a company getting involved with an interested costumer. Through this companies could see who is interested in their products and target those individuals. Everyone knows how annoying it can become when you get mail and junk from companies and stores that you have no interest in. So here the main customers would have the advantage in what the store or company was trying to sell. The disadvantage is the main idea of privacy. I myself wouldn’t want someone looking over my back looking at everything I buy, not that I have anything to hide with my purchases. But it’s just this idea of having privacy and buying what you want, when you want. If I buy a couple of things from one company, it doesn’t mean that I want to be on their most frequent shoppers list. People just want the freedom to buy what they want when they want or need it. If this idea of target advertising could be revised I would much rather consider it, but it just seems like all the privacy that exists is thrown out and companies are choosing what to buy for you.

LARP vs. Virtual World

Today we talked about two different ideas of becoming other than yourself. The first kind we talked was called LARP. This stands for live action role play. The other idea was the virtual world which includes computer games such as World of World craft and Second Life. The many difference between the two ideas of becoming somebody else is physical interaction. In Larping people get together and create clans and kingdoms that they defend against another group. They get together on weekdays and weekends to practice and assign roles for the battle that is ahead in the future. But not only do they concentrate on the game but they built friendships and relationships that are real. In the virtual world you don’t get this interaction. You get a virtual character and you can battle or meet other people’s virtual characters. And most people create a character that is nothing like themselves, so are you really “meeting” people in the virtual world? Or are you meeting this person that really doesn’t exist? It seems like from our readings that people use this to make up a fantasy and to escape the reality of life. On the other side, yes, people are becoming something else, but you’re getting to interact in the real world which makes the situation so much more different. It seems so much healthier to be outside meeting others through a common interest, instead of sitting inside and meeting fake and virtual people 50 hours out of the week.

Jason Rowe

One of the saddest stories to me is the creator of the avatar Rurouni Kenshin. Jason Rowe is a disabled, and feels that he has to socialize through a virtual world called Star Wars Galaxies. One of the reasons he enjoys playing is because people see him for who he is and not what he looks like, “The internet eliminates how you look in real life, so you get to know a person by their mind and personality.” He has this idea that people wouldn’t like him for who he is if he were out in the real world trying to make friends. He spends an average of 80 hours a week playing as his avatar in this virtual world. Some people might find his disability an excuse for him to play, but for some reason I just don’t see the point. I understand that a lot of people would judge him for what he looks like, but why not give it a shot and try to meet someone face to face. I find it unhealthy that he keeps himself locked up inside playing in this fantasy world. Yes, he is getting to live a life that he wouldn’t get to live, but it’s not real. So the question is what is the reward? I feel that the virtual has no meaning and is a meaningless black hole that sucks people’s life away. The virtual world just seems to be a place for people to escape to, because they can’t deal with the reality of life.

Privacy and Advertisements

I would like to discuss the way in which I believe that some forms of technology have so completely invaded our privacy that in the process, they have taken away our freedom. The type of technology that I am mostly referring to is the billboards that can determine what kinds of products you are interested in and then advertise them to you by speaking in your head. As crazy as it seems, technology has allowed a billboard, a seemingly inanimate object, to read someone's mind and then speak to them in a way that no one else can hear. Though this can be viewed by some as the "next generation of advertising," to me it is just a horrible invasion of privacy and one that threatens our freedom. There are so many ways these days in which our freedom is limited in the name of national security or protection in some form, all of which I completely support - but to invade someone's personal thoughts in the name of advertising is the Consumer Panopticon gone too far. There are times where our privacy has to be invaded in the name of a bigger good, but this is not one of those situations. Our minds are the only place in which we have ultimate privacy and the ability to think whatever we want without the opinions or judgments of others, and these thoughts should not be invaded and then used to the advantage of someone else. While talking about Lessig in class, we discussed the question, "Are we free only insofar as the technology that exists is imperfect enough that we don't have to worry about people observing us all the time?" If this is what freedom is, then not only has our privacy been taken from us, but also our freedom.

The topic of freedom in the workplace could be argued fairly easily when considering solely the United States.  The topic and discussion gets more heated when other countries are brought into the equation. As Gretchen mention in one of her blogs, some of the practices that we witnessed during the video in class are shocking.  Realistically, work in the United States is also monitored fairly closely by managers so that the output is what is expected and output meets the initial plan that is drawn out.  On the other hand, there isn’t much comparison to the level of monitoring between the United States workplace and the Jamaica workplace that was discussed in a video that was shown during class.  The work practices that were being exercised in Jamaica were much worse than anything I’ve ever experienced or witnessed here in the United States.  Not being able to take a break for a second after doing excessive repetitive work would almost be similar to torture.  You have a set of eyes on you at all times, and if you were to mess up, there are consequences.  This is extremely unfortunate that companies such as Tommy Hilfiger and Brooks Brothers have dropped to this level of inhumanity in order to produce cheap goods for the American consume and make as much profit off of the shirts as possible.

I really wanted to take this blogging opportunity to agree with Kristina Griffin on one of her posting.  Is is remarkable how much I agree with her on this subject, considering that Kristina and I usually have disagreements are many political topics.  What Kristina is essentially saying is that inequality is a necessary evil.  Obviously, no one like to be on the short end of the stick, but that is just how the business world works.  There is a need for a separation of power in the workplace.  There are many people that are great workers, but really need that extra motivation of a boss giving them pressure for them to produce the appropriate quantity and quality that is expected of them.  If there wasn’t inequality in the workplace, there wouldn’t be any incentive for one to work hard and stand out from the rest of the crowd.  When there is inequality, the workers that have a great work ethic that represents a good example for the peers around them could eventually lead to them getting promoted.  This is the approach to business that makes the world go around.  This is why business are efficient and why they make profit.  Kristina also asks why should a CEO get paid just as much as a low skilled worker?  Believe it or not, CEO have a lot to sacrifice to get the large pay that they usually bring in every year.  Many times they have to neglect their family and concentrate on business problems during non-working hours.  Take for example an NBA player.  NBA players make a great deal of money every year, but there are also many things they have to give that many normal workers don’t have to.  One of those if family time.  For a large portion of the year they are on the road.  The children that they have with their wives have to be raised ultimately by a single mother for over half of the year.  This is a large price to pay, hence the large salaries that they are rewarded with.  In conclusion, inequality in the workplace is very necessary for the business (sports is a business also!)world.

I wanted to actually post two documents concerning the topic of freedom.  As mentioned in the other posting, many people continue to question the freedom of the workers in the fast food industry.  I wanted to approach the discussion from a different angle and further explain my side of the argument.   Over the summer in between my sophomore and junior year at Vanderbilt, I worked construction for a marble and granite company that had a job locally here in Nashville.  Most of this company is composed of people without much of an education but are given the opportunity to improve their pay over the years.  I worked throughout the whole summer and was paid twelve dollars an hour.  This was the starting pay.  In other words, right off the bad, I was making more than most of the people that work at McDonalds.  After working for many weeks, I became aware of the entire process and lifestyle of a construction worker.  First of all, people who are working construction take a great deal of pride in their work.  When a job takes a lot of hard work and eventually becomes complete, the sense of accomplishment is very noticeable with every worker.  Even though the job gets tiring, the older guys never complain and legitimately enjoy what they are doing.  Moreover, the pay doesn’t stay at twelve dollars an hour for very long.  After years of work and a good deal of experience that is gained, the pay rate eventually moves up to twenty dollars and hour.  When the pay rate is twenty dollars and hour, they have to opportunity to work many overtime hours which pay thirty dollars an hour.  This is a respectable pay rate that can provide oneself much easier than the pay rate of a fast food restaurant employee.   Moreover, if one proves themselves and stands out as a hard worker, they could eventually become a foreman, making even more money.  All in all, this is an easy career path to approach so that you wouldn’t have to work in the fast food business.  There is a choice, and, in my opinion, it is ignorant to say that they don’t have freedom.

There are many things that I consider when I think about the people at fast food restaurants.  One must obviously consider if they had choices earlier in their life to set themselves apart from others so that the fast food business didn’t turn into the only way to feed and shelter.  To be honest, I have a hard time believing that these people cannot separate themselves if they really wanted to.  Let’s take the state of Texas for example.  If one graduates in the top ten percent from their graduating class, they are automatically accepted into any Texas school of their choice.  What this mean is that you essentially don’t even have to take the SAT or ACT, you just have to excel in your classes during high school.  Everyone in Texas has this opportunity.  It doesn’t matter if you are absolutely awful at standardized testing such as the SAT or ACT, as long as you did what you need to do during the high school years to stand out (graduate in the top ten percent of the class).   Moreover, let’s take the state of Georgia for example.  Georgia has a program called HOPE of which you qualify for if your high school average is a B.  If you get into a public college in Georgia, they will pay for your entire undergraduate education as long as you keep a 3.0 GPA.  This is an incredible deal.  Georgia Tech is a top 3 engineering program in the nation, and one could get this for free if they put in enough hard work.  Who is this system leaving out?  Truth is, virtually no one.  Many have approached me after I have informed them of my opinion on this matter, and the first thing that is usually brought up is the fact that many young kids are forced to drop out of school and support their family.  Once this person is old enough, he or she could could simply realize that they can leave and get a GED.  Once the GED is obtained, it is now possible to go to a community college, of which one can take out loans.  If the student does well enough in the community college, then transferring to a larger and more well known college is very possible.  This is a feasible route for essentially all Americans.

Free choice

One of the most confusing questions to think about is do people really have free choice? According to the discussion raised in class it seems that people have very limited choice when it comes to this idea of freedom. After the discussion on Thursday I find that choice is more based on the situation. For example, if someone asks someone to pick between different ideas they present then in a sense this is forced choice. To person picking between these ideas has what I like to call limited choice. They can only choose between what the other person presents to them, so, in a sense, they are being forced to choose what they want. But with if the person likes the majority or all the choices presented. Some people would find this to be free choice because they are choosing what they want, but in the same sense they are still being limited on what they choose so I find all of this to be forced choice. The only way someone has free choice is if they actually pick out what they want. No outside interference can influence their decision, or then it directly becomes forced choice. So going back to my last post, The System of Freedom, I find all the workers in the third world countries to be in the situation of forced choice. Yes they have the free choice of whether or not to work, but life controls their choice because if they choose not to work then they will starve and not be able to support their families. But the idea of free choice almost seems very vague because it seems that most of the choices we make in life are influenced by something in life, whether it is money, status, convenience, or even happiness.

Choice vs. freedom

Up until recently, I made the mistake that many do, believing that choice and freedom were interconnected - that if someone had more than one option and the ability to choose between the two, then they were exercising freedom and thus were uninhibited. I know now that just because one seemingly has a choice does not necessarily mean that they are free, and there is a spectrum with "forced choosing" at one end and "free choosing" at the other, illustrating this discrepancy. What I would like to discuss a little more, though, is the idea of forced choosing. When one is faced with a choice where there is not a reasonable or acceptable alternative and thus they technically do not have a choice, it is a forced choice. But if you are to take a step back from that, and ask yourself the question, "why are these people faced with a situation where they do not have a reasonable or acceptable alternative?" it gets trickier. For example, the person who is faced with the "choice" (this word has a false connotation to it now for for me) of either working at a fast food restaurant or starving really does not have a option and will choose working at the fast food option, but it begs the question, why are there people out there who are faced with such a one-way street? I know that blaming people is never the answer, but I cannot help but blame out society for allowing people to be in such a situation where their only other option is starving. I understand that work is work, and that working at a fast food restaurant is better than not working at all, but to think that some people are put between such a wall and a hard place is truly terrible. I'm not saying that I know what the solution is, because I don't, but merely expressing my discontent with the idea of forced choosing and the consequent lack of freedom that goes along with it.

Technology reducing job opportunities and human interaction

The three stories listed all describe different ways that technology can be used in a way to benefit a company. Technology will benefit the firm by reducing the operation costs of employing a certain amount of labor. Technology can perform the same tasks as these employees and it can do it in most cases much better and more effectively. The question that arises from this is whether society is better off as a result. It is clear that those being replaced by technology are not better of because they are out of a job and their skill set has become practically obsolete. The other side of the coin is the general population and how they benefit greatly from these advances in technology. They experience lower costs and greater convenience so they are in favor of actions that will promote this. The airport example of replacing desks with kiosks is a perfect example of something that almost every consumer will favor if it will save time and promote efficiency. When a consumer visits an airport the last thing they want to worry about is communicating with some employee that is slow and marginal at what they do. Consumers will know what they can expect from this technology and as a result efficiency and moral of the consumer will improve. The next example cell phones and boarding passes is similar to the previous example in that the intentions are the same, the method is just slightly different. The final example of using text message to order food is quite remarkable, but in a different way. It basically sheds light on the fact that people are so against human interaction that they resort to sending a text message to place an order. It can be a very effective measure if it saves time and money for the company, but the message that people would prefer to avoid all human interaction in general is slightly disturbing.

Deskilled Work…What is the problem?

I have to admit even after our discussions in class about deskilled work, it is difficult for me to understand why deskilled work was a problem. I would rather have corporations divide the labor process into deskilled work so that computers and technology can complete the work for me. I enjoy the use of computers everyday. I am able to complete projects easier with assistance of software and the internet. I do understand that there is a negative to deskilled work. For example, jobs in service businesses like McDonald’s and grocery stores are decreasing their labor force with the aid of technology. Jobs in McDonald’s are being transferred to call centers. At first, I thought how great of an operations improvement. Workers do not have to multitask in restaurants and the orders are more accurate. But we also have to consider the ethics involved. The best way to highlight the problems with this is to examine is the employees are free. Are these employees free? If we are defining freedom as growth, then the answer is no. The employees deskilled work is not providing with means to grow intellectually. If we are defining freedom as participative, the answer is no again. The workers do have a say in how their jobs are formed or regulated. Management in their pursuit of M-C-M’ have the complete control over their employees. So, yes fast food orders are more accurate and efficiency I being accomplished with technology, but is that a good thing? Can the customer sacrifice a few seconds while waiting on their order? Can the corporation sacrifice money in order to keep their labor force in tact? As long as the capitalism and M-C-M’ are ruling our lives I do not see these outcomes happening.

Modern Times and the lack of control

The scenes from Modern Times highlight the issues presented by Braverman. Braverman argues that the workplace for blue collar employees exemplifies a lack of freedom because of the division of labor that exists in the factories. Various employees are treated differently and the idea presented in the scenes shows that those who do the most are treated the worst. The manager basically has no real value to the company because they seem to waste time while alienating the ‘lesser’ workers. These scenes also relate to Greenbaum with the idea that work is deskilled. The factory worker is shown performing the same repetitive task over and over again and their job requires action without thinking. The human capital element of the worker is deskilled because there is no use for thought in their job. They do not have the room for growth within this occupation for these reasons and thus they are not truly free in this occupation. The concept of employee monitoring is also present and seemingly exaggerated in this video. The manager exists to monitor the employees and that seems to be it. He has a large television screen where he has access to everyone in what appears to be every possible location, and that is too much. The employee cannot go anywhere in the factory without the manager having access to them and although that may improve productivity, it ruins moral and creates resentment in the factory. The idea that connects all of these readings with the movie is the lack of freedom within the workplace and it exists so that a company can be profitable, but the lines are often crossed and the employees suffer as a result.

The Need for Inequality

I would normally be an advocate for equality but in the case of work inequality is necessary. In capitalism, a system of separation of tasks and responsibility achieves productivity. With separate jobs unequal pay, power, and benefits are sure to follow. Why should a blue collar worker get be paid as much as a CEO? The CEO has probably been schooled to be the brain behind the operations of companies. They deserve to be rewarded for their intellectual and business direction. Also, inequality breeds competition thus incentive to ‘work hard.’ Employees have incentive to climb up the corporate ladder. Most people do not argue against inequality in the workplace but debate about how much inequality is suitable. I would like to see the gap between the rich and poor decrease in size but what methods would have to be taken to achieve this? Another issue might exist in the capitalistic system. In class we agreed M-C-M’. The rich are able to make more money with money. Even if we evened out the economic field, wouldn’t the rich be able to make their money back over time? If I took a billion dollars from Bill Gates and gave it to the poor, couldn’t he just make the billion dollars back? My issue isn’t that the rich are too rich. I would just like to see those living under or near the poverty line out of their situations. What can we do? Steal from the rich to give to the poor? Provide the poor with cheaper resources to live? Require corporations to raise their lowest salaries? Identifying the problem is easy in comparison to coming up with and installing a solution.

Hypermobility of capital

I was very interested in the movie we watched in class last week about how American companies such as Hanes and Tommy Hilfiger outsource their labor to countries like Jamaica, and the ways in which these companies go to extreme measures to control the workers and the cost of the workers. It really helped to put into perspective our recent readings, and to actually see how these workers' every movie is controlled and structured around creating the most goods in the cheapest manner, regardless of the well-being of the worker. The division of labor was also very apparent - for example, one woman's sole responsibility was to sew the pockets on Hanes t-shirts. This division of labor puts the power into the hands of the managers because they have control over the entire process. I was appalled that the Jamaican workers were paid mere fractions of what their products sold for, and to make matters worse, are not even paid in American dollars. It is a double-edged sword though, because even though the disparity between labor and wages is huge, the people who are working there are not in the position to refuse work - they have to take the work that is available, which in this circumstance is working for a company likes Hanes. It makes me feel that it is our responsibility to intervene, such as the people in the movie did, and do what we can to stop this unfair cycle. I was also very interested in the concept of a "Free Zone." The fact that American products can be brought to Jamaica via cargo ship, unloaded and produced in factories, then put back on the boat headed to the United States, and technically never touch Jamaican territory is absurd. Free Zones are just another way for companies to take advantage of their laborers. Free Zones assist in the hypermobility, or flight of capital, better, and the way in which capital is able to uproot itself and go elsewhere easily.

A System of Freedom

On Thursday we talked about this idea of freedom. But, Professor Perry showed that there are many different ideas of freedom. The way freedom was shown this time was through a video about outsourcing. To summarize, it talked about how companies would move from area to area finding where they could employ people for the least amount of money. Then when the demand grew for higher wages the company would just pack up and move to another area of poverty. So the question is, are these people free or are they enslaved by the system. It almost seems that the people are not free because of how the system works. If work comes to a place and offers you money for work, then you are most likely going to work because the money is a necessity. And most of the people that worked in these areas had families that consisted of an average around 7 to 9 people. And if these people decide that they don’t want to work then they can’t provide for themselves or others that depend on them. So I again I find that these people as slaves to the system. Another reason I think it seems like this is because companies target these people that live in these areas. So in a way the people that own the companies are employing these people before they even decide whether they want to work or not. Putting all these facts together it looks like these people freedom is in control of the companies that employ them. This freedom seems to be a decision. The freedom of making decisions and making life choices is being given to the people that own the businesses.

The Ethics of the Housing Dilemma

The interview with Randy Cohen examines the ethics of the housing crisis with respect to people’s actions and their deserving of the government bailout package. The ethical question arises from this situation as to whether or not this is fair because those who abided by the rules and laws do not reap any of the benefits of this package. The people that were careless and irresponsible are receiving a second chance, but this is completely unfair to those who followed the rules. Cohen feels as though this is fair because people deserve second chances, however rewarding ignorant behavior and bad judgment is not an ethical thing for the government to do. Cohen acknowledges that he would prefer not to reward bad behavior, but he does not view this situation as such. I disagree with this notion that a person buying an expensive house that they cannot afford is a mistake. When people do this they are making a conscious decision to purchase a house that they should not be purchasing with hopes that it will not hurt them financially in the future. This speculative type of finance is dangerous for society and threatens to cripple the economy, which it obviously has started to do as a result. An ignorant decision would be buying a house in the wrong location, but this is unrelated to the current crisis. Bankers that gave out the bad loans and those that accepted them are both equally at fault and for me to suffer because of their stupidity and bad judgment is not an ethical thing for the government to promote. We live in a capitalist society and the actions taken by the government are too radical and this regime threatens to become socialistic if more actions like this are taken.

The Electric Car Failed?

Today I found the video of the GM documentary to be kind of infuriating. Not so much that they were taking the cars back, but for the reasons they were taking them back. Professor Perry said that they were taking the cars because of the oil companies and auto part manufacturers. So how does this have to do with ethics? Well first the creation of these cars has already created more jobs and has created a less polluted planet. So doesn’t the idea of utilitarianism not apply to this situation? I find it does, because the principle of utilitarianism looks to find the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people, not to name the number of people that were leased the car and enjoyed having a new invention in their very own hands. The people in the film seemed to be so happy with this new technology, so why not keep them? Because, it seemed GM didn’t want to step on the toes of other people, but they didn’t look down the road to see that this new car would be more beneficial for society. It seems that companies are so caught up in the now, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see the electric car back on the market in a few years. I think that car companies need to look at this principle and see that this car could be the future of the world.

Live Free or Drown- Floating Utopias

I would like to comment on the article entitled "Live Free or Drown" from Wired magazine, which discusses the Seasteading Institute and its plan to create aquatic homesteads, or what some view as "floating utopias." Though I comprehend the reasoning behind wanting to create a "new world," I do not think that it is ultimetely possible, and I cannot help but think this idea is a little ridiculous and far fetched. Those following the plan of the Seasteading Institute (which almost seems like a kind of cult) are led by Patri Friedman, who "doesn't just want to create huge floating platforms that people can live on. He's also hoping to create a platform in the sense that Linux is a platform: a base upon which people can build their own innovative forms of governance." They believe that the government that we currently have is beyond repair and that it is "an inefficient industry because it has an insane barrier to entry." Like I said before, I can understand that they are frusterated, but what really frusterates me is that their so-called "solution" to this problem is to run away. They want to leave the world, and government, we have now and create something completely new, which to me means that they are giving up and not fighting for change. Friedman says that "we've run out of frontier" and uses that as the reasoning of why they're looking to the "untouched" oceans for a new civiliation, but I feel that he should channel all of this time, energy and money into making changes back in the United States. Like they said in the article, there is a very high possibility that this venture will fail, and then the $50 million dollars spent on the ocean mass will go to waste, when it could have been used for beneficial purposes.

Ethics and Corn

Ethics is a discussion of how people should relate to people. In Pollan’s article corn is used as a tool to show how people, animals, products, and organizations all relate to one another. I like to discuss some of the solutions posed in response to Pollan’s corn article. If the problem is dangerous, hybrid, and fossil fueled corn, why can we not set high standards on corn? Why can’t the FDA regulate the products farmers make? This government entity regulates all other corporations’ foods, why is agriculture different? The FDA should follow biological/ecological logic. Corn should be made with current sunlight and cows should be grass fed. I say let the capitalist system sustain the farmers who are able to make an abundance of ecological corn and weed out the others in order to follow the laws of supply and demand. It needs to be a combination of solutions because if we just encourage farmers to make healthier corn, what will keep companies like Cargill and ADM from continuing to produce and use the cheaper, unhealthy corn. If they are still able to use this unhealthy corn and their sell goods for less, consumers won’t necessarily do what is best for them. They will do what is cheaper. McDonald’s is a thriving fast food restaurant and produces obvious unhealthy foods in which Americans still consume. It is fast and cheap. Meat from corn feed cows is also cheaper than grass fed cows. In our capitalist system cheap products fare an excellent chance of beating out the healthier competition. This is why the FDA should mandate healthy corn production from farmers.

Freedom: are we entitled to it?

Our discussions in class about freedom and rights, whether natural or political, led me to think about freedom in the United States, and how I personally perceive it. I recognize that this is a popular subject about which to blog, but it is one that I have some definite opinions about and felt the need to elaborate about them. The phrase in the Declaration of Independence, "we hold these truths to be self-evident" is one that does not settle well with me because it has lead to what I believe is a lack of appreciation in Americans. People feel that they are entitled to the freedoms that come with living in America, and believe that regardless of their actions, they will always have such freedoms. What I am trying to say is that people expect and assume that they will always have the right to freedom, and do not stop and acknowledge the fact that they are so lucky and blessed. And when situations arise where people's freedoms need to be curtailed to a certain extent to protect the greater freedom of the United States as a whole, people get extremely angry and upset. In a time of war, for example, I believe that some aspects of freedom must be limited to ensure the survival of freedom as a whole, but I understand that there are many who disagree. It seems as though people are so quick to point fingers when a freedom has been taken away, but they do not stop and take the time to thank the people who work so hard to protect and ensure these freedoms. What I am ultimately trying to say, in an extremely circuitous way, is that the freedom that we have in the United States is not something we are entitled to, per se, but rather is a gift, and something that we should be thankful for every day.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

All men have the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Our fore fathers believed happiness was so important as to include it in the United States Constitution. Happiness is a good value to include in the nation's value system. Thus, laws and systems are designed to supports a man's right to pursuit happiness as a core element. I would also like to consider life and liberty because I believe life and liberty are just as important as values to sustain our society. The right to life maintains laws that forbid abuse and murder to another person. Our healthcare also shows the importance of life. The discussion of liberty has been very popular in class. Do we live in a free culture? Most Americans would say we are a free society. I would agree with this statement on whole, but our political has definitely infringed on many aspects on Americans' lives. For example, gay marriage is outlawed pretty much across the nation. Why can't two men get married? If it is their pursuit of happiness and does this does not infringe on other lives and liberty, what is the problem? The institution of marriage is a man made concept. The exclusion of members of society is not upholding the values of this country. Our economic system supports the values of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Capitalism allows individuals to be mobile amongst the classes (but not easily). As we discussed in class, happiness should not be measured against money. So by making the economic system and the pursuit happiness mutually exclusive it does not hinder the right.

Is "Freedom" Really Freedom?

The discussion on freedom really sparked an interest this past week, because it made me really think if we are free. One of the comments said was that you can't be completely free without law, which then there is no freedom. And I totally agree. It seems that the idea of freedom has changed from age to age and everybody has this different aspect of freedom in their mind. This is another reason why there is no clear cut idea of freedom. Then the question of is the United States free? I think we are as free as free is ever going to get without there being chaos. So the first comment is that freedom can't exist without law resulting in no freedom. Well this seems to be a contradicting statement, but it is very true. If we had no law then people would infringe on others freedom to be free so then there would not be this idea of freedom. Then this infringement would bring about chaos which no one wants because everybody wants peace, which then results in this idea of freedom. The second point is that everybody has a different idea of freedom. Well if everyone has a different concept won't they destroy others freedom. Yes, because if my idea interferes with someone else's, then like in the first example, there is no real freedom. So then is the United States free? Yes, compared to the rest of the world. People have a chance to make something of themselves and do what they want in life, and it is mostly theirs to control. Also there are laws that prohibit others from infringing on others "freedom". So to an extent the United States is free provides the best oppurtunity of freedom. So this brings me to my final point, is there really a perfect idea of freedom. I say no, because of all the reasons above. It seems that we have painted this unrealistic picture of freedom in our mind, when we really need to take a closer look at what freedom really is.

I really wanted to reflect on the issue of how some people say that America isn’t free.  When I hear this, this honestly bothers me a great deal.  America is the freest nation on the face of the earth in my opinion.  One might argue that Holland might be freer because of the fact that more drugs are legal and prostitution isn’t looked down upon by law.  Especially the prostitution aspect of it, I would like to further discuss on this subject.  Because of the fact that women aren’t allowed to sell themselves for sex in the United States, they aren’t thought of as property.  As a matter of fact, because of our traditions and laws, women are expected to be treated with a large amount of respect by other men.  In most cases, a women will not associated herself with a man that talks and treats her like property.  This is how it is supposed to be.  In countries all around the world, there are many cases where women are thought of as a sexual being rather than an intellectual being like the rest of us.  Also, the law about drugs in the United States also gives the population as a whole a better life.  Although a temporary feeling might be better than a sober state of mind, after the drug fades, you are always left a little less than you had.  This decreased quantity could be happiness, health, and many other things.  Also, America possesses the ability to speak out for how you feel, usually without consequences as long as you didn’t break any laws.  Many people speak out against the president, and have no shame or fear doing it.  Although I may agree or disagree at times, I do enjoy the ability to do as I please within reason.

The Ethics behind "The Story of Stuff"

The class video entitled “The Story of Stuff” examines what goes into various things and the harm that can be caused under the current system. This is a very biased video because it instantly takes one side and talks about how bad everything currently is without proper explanation or some potential suggestions for how to fix the problem. The creators of the video are clearly against current production methods; which is fine and they lay out very good reasons. The only problem with this is that if a criticism is to be made a follow up suggestion needs to be made to validate the criticism. The video also had some absurd data that is very subjective and hard to prove. An example of this is the happiness chart cited. The happiness chart makes absolutely no sense because they do not describe the factors that comprise happiness; so it’s almost as if happiness is this arbitrary variable that can be manipulated however they want so as to validate their point of view. Another problem with the video is the abrupt ending and the lack of closure on the subject. The video is basically nineteen and a half minutes of ranting and then a thirty second conclusion that fails to bring everything together and make a point or emphasize a message. The suggestions made by the video are brief and lack substance, so the video leaves the viewer with an empty feeling and the desire for a message or point to be retained.

Intellectual Property - Creative Commons (CC)

Our laws represent our value system. Our laws defend our value system. We believe that creators have a right to benefit from their products of creativity. Capitalism has promoted this value and thus this idea that creators have rights to profit from their work. If capitalism was not the basis of our economic system, would another value have been established? What system would need to be in place in order to have a value of sharing instead of excluding? The ability of 'Creative Commons' (CC) licenses may be the option in that direction. These 'Creative Commons' licenses make it possible for creators to benefit from other creators' works. The original creators have waived their exclusivity of their works in order to let others benefit and build upon the product. These original creators are selfless and seem to be fully motivated by the work itself, not the monetary profits. I hope that enough interest and support develops for this option in order for creativity to build. Can the Creative Commons licenses flourish in a capitalistic world? One type of permission granted by Creative Commons is a noncommercial option. This does not allow new creators to profit from the use of their originators' work. This promotes the access to create but does not necessarily facilitate the motivation to make money. Is the only way to motivate creation through monetary enticement? This Creative Commons should pose as a good test to see whether creation will happen with or without the motivation for profit.

Intellectual Property: A Changing of the Tide

In my last post on intellectual property, I talked about how I thought intellectual property seems to make up people, kind of like a characteristic. Now I want to talk about how I see intellectual property as changing the world we live in today. Not only has intellectual property been vital in today’s time, but also in the shaping of this great nation we live in today. Think about all the individuals it took to create the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Many great minds took part in these historic moments in our countries history. And they, collectively, built a nation that has survived through some of the roughest times imaginable. Intellectual property is more than just a property someone holds, but it’s a responsibility that we all have to the world we live in today. What I’m saying is that we need to regulate some of the copy right laws we have today and build them to where they benefit for the good of society. Copy right laws seem to be holding us back from bigger and better things. People have thoughts every day, and once they are put out, there is a barricade put around them to keep others out. As history shows, if we could all put our minds together and build upon each other’s thoughts then we could rise to heights unimaginable to the human mind.

In Lessig’s article ‘In Defense of Piracy’ he talks about how the copyright laws have failed to catch up with new technology.  I agree with this for the most part.  If there is a very small amount of lyrics that a new artist wants to use, I feel that it is completely okay.  Moreover, if they want to take a couple of catchy note combinations and loop it, I am actually okay with that also.  On the other hand, there is a group of others that I disagree with.  For this reason I strongly suggest and support the idea of bulking up copyright rules.  If an artist is okay with someone repeating a large portion of his song in his/her own, then it should be okay.  This should be the case regardless of what the record labels want.  Even though the record label might not like it, they most likely won’t lose any money off of the incident anyways.  When a new song is released that resembles an old popular song, it usually sparks a brief popular stint for the old song anyways.  Ultimately, this increases the revenue for the record label supporting the old artist.

An artist might also have some great pride in his music and not want this to happen.  In this case, it should be possible for him to halter the making of new music using his previously made music.  All in all, I feel that the copyright rules should be able to let the artist have as much protection as he wants on his music, as long as it is realistic.

Ethics of Dell

Dell is a corporation that exists to generate profits and the article relating carbon neutrality as well as the class video regarding computer disposal demonstrate this concept firsthand. This poses a question of ethics because the motives behind Dell’s actions are different than what they try and portray to the public. Dell claims to be carbon neutral, but this idea is almost impossible to obtain and by claiming to be carbon neutral Dell appeases to a broader base of consumers, and thus generates greater profits. They are only claiming to be carbon neutral for monetary reasons, not moral reasons. This difference is not a huge ethical problem, but it is one because it shows how Dell tries to mislead consumers for their benefit and progress. The video demonstrates this problem to a greater extent because it is direct exploitation, as opposed to indirect exploitation. Computers that are out of use are shipped to third world countries where they are broken down and dissected for useful parts. On the surface this seems like a good or smart idea because computer manufacturers are trying to maximize the usage out of a computer. The problem arises because of the hazardous effects this process has on the individual workers and subsequently the surrounding community. Computers contain many toxic compounds and elements and when dissected an individual becomes directly exposed to these toxins and will be subjected to the maladies they cause. These toxins also go further as demonstrated by the video specifically in relation to surrounding communities. When these computers are broken down they are left in a pile and rain causes these chemicals to be absorbed into the soil and after sufficient time the water supply as well. These concerns prove that Dell as well as any other company for that matter should be viewed with skepticism when they claim to be something, because in actuality they only to do so to generate greater profits and thus the ethical problem arises.

Group members, the first blog I failed to put it on the blog website.  I just realized this.  I only put it in the assignment thing on OAK.  Sorry for the delay.  Here it is.

There are so many ideas, entertainment, thoughts, advantages, secrets, power, and knowledge that could be held in intellectual knowledge.  Many of the ideas that are held in intellectual property include many items that we haven’t even heard about.  Usually, once we hear about them, they can then be protected by law.  Otherwise, it is nearly impossible to create a law that directly affects it.  On the other hand, intellectual property in the form of entertainment, such as music, theatre, or literature, is protected by law.  It is also protected by other things such as Digital Rights Management, known as DRM.  DRM is a very controversial trait to legally downloaded music from online stores.  I personally loathe DRM, for it hinders the usability of the songs that you actually paid for.  Also, I feel that this creates a need for people to illegally download music so that they can do whatever they want to with their music.  With iTunes music, you can only play downloaded music from the iTunes store in Apple software.   They now offer a deal in which you can pay a certain extra amount for DRM-free music.  Most people don’t want to pay extra for it, they just want it to come DRM-free for the initially paid 99 cents.  When you buy the CD at a music store, the music is DRM-free and you can put the music wherever you want to.

Computer Recycling

The word "recycling" has a distinctively positive connotation - when people recycle, they feel as though they're doing something good for the planet and its people, and that they deserve a metaphorical "pat on the back." I learned from the Dell website that all Dell computers, whether laptops or desktops, can be recycled, and that the company encourages such action. There is an entire page on Dell's website devoted to recycling, with the slogan "Free. Easy. Convenient." They outline who to contact to get rid of your old computer and how easy the process is - they will even go to the extent of having someone come to your home to remove and "recycle" your old computer. But what Dell does not touch upon, though, is where the computers go to be recycled and how it happens. We assume that if we recycle, we have automatically done the right thing and do not take the time to question where this seemingly secretive process occurs. It has come to my attention through a video we watched in class today that recycling is not always as carefree as imagined, especially when it comes to recycling computers. With 50% of the world's computers taken to China for recycling, the "e-waste" there is not only unbelievable and outrageous, but dangerous as well. When the screens of computers are smashed to separate the glass, the led inside is released, and contaminates the soil and rivers, thus contaminating the water table and necessitating the shipment of fresh water into the area. This is despicable and should not be tolerated. We must learn to question where and how things are recycled, and not just assume that because they have magically disappeared, we have done the right thing. I am not trying to say that recycling is bad and should be stopped, but it is our responsibility as active citizens to stop and learn more about the recycling process and how it affects others.

Intellectual Property - Creativity

A suitable synonym for intellectual property is creativity. All people have the natural right to be creative according to MacPherson. Now, do all people have the right of protect their works of creativity and benefit from them? The capitalist belief or value defends the creator's right to profit from their works of creativity. And the American laws have been set to protect that value.
Now, the American law also allows pieces of creative works to be used by others as long as the work is cited or the tribute is contributed. Lessig presents "quoting" as a way of payment to the originator. As a student, I benefit from this allowance when writing research papers about topics only experts like Doctors of Philosophy have researched. Do I profit monetarily from this use? No. I do benefit but I do not profit monetarily. It is obvious that companies and profit seeking entities find problems with these 'quoting' issues when profits are being earned. GirlTalk, for example, is an artist that has made money from "quoting" musical artists in order to create new musical products.
If I am to support GirlTalk's position I would use the concept developed by Locke. Locke presented the idea that if value is added to something then improvement has been made and the new property that has been created is owned by the creator. This concept can be applied here. Many listeners are downloading GirlTalk's musical product which proves he has added value and made an improvement to something thus he deserves the monetary profits. Creativity in any form is owned by the creator thus GirlTalk should wreak the benefits.

Intellectual Property and Music

The article entitled “The Problem With Music” by Steve Albini offers a very negative view of the music recording industry from a band’s aspect. Albini is under the impression that new bands are exploited and taken of advantage of in regards to contracts and money, but the simple fact is that every industry employs this strategy and he thinks that the music industry is the only industry that falters because of his specific knowledge of this field. Albini starts the article out by explaining how hard new bands have to work to succeed and how they supposedly have to subject themselves to unpleasant and unfair tasks, but this is a very close minded view of reality. When people break into any field it is very hard to receive recognition and thrive, that is just how American culture works. People are emotional and jealous and the majority of them love to see others fail, whether it’s just to see them fail or for their individual advancement. Some of the arguments Albini makes are completely valid, but at the same point stardom is not an easy thing to achieve and thus bands knowingly subject themselves to this type of treatment by entering the music industry. Record labels earn enormous amounts of money and because it is a business they have no incentive to be accommodating or generous to their clients, they just have to keep them satisfied so that the revenue streams continue. If the music industry has no incentive or mandate to lessen their exploitation of clients, then this trend will continue because money talks and there is much to be made in the current system. That being said, a successful band makes more money than they could spend in multiple lifetimes so they are very capable of beating the system if they are good enough and wise enough to endure a rough rise to fame.

Intellectual Property

Over the past few weeks I have found intellectual property to be one of the most sacred things a human being can embrace and claim as theirs. Intellectual property makes up someone just as much as the physical characteristics that make up their body. So why do people try and steal or copy this intellectual property people have created? Are they not creative enough themselves? Well it seems as Lessig has written, that copy right laws are helping to change this stealing and copying of intellectual property. That’s why I see this idea of intellectual property as a part of someone, because they have taken the time to sit and create this idea that could benefit society in some way. So maybe as people, we shouldn’t try and steal these ideas, but take some time and create our own so that we all can feel a sense of helping each other. Intellectual property also separates and creates every individual in our society. So if people are stealing others ideas then they, in a sense, don’t have an identity, but have stolen someone else’s. So for the better of society wouldn’t it just be better if everyone could create their own identity? The world then would be so much more diverse than the one we have created and live in today.

A Free Society and Intellectual Property - Gretchen

I was very intrigued by the discussion we had last class about what it means to be a part of a free society and what exactly it takes for a society to be characterized as "free." The first thing that comes to my mind when I think of a free society is one in which people are treated equally, regardless of race, gender or sexuality; where people can benefit from the fruits of their labor and have freedom of expression. But as we delved into this discussion in class, I was exposed to new ideas about what it means to be "free," and the concept that in order to be free, we must be prohibited from doing certain things. To someone else, a "free society" might be one where people can do whatever they want, whenever they want, and in this process, they could be taking away others freedom. Thus, a free society must include some sort of order and authority to allow it to be truly free. Though this seems like an oxymoron - regulating people and holding them back in order for them to be free - it really makes sense when you think of it in terms of intellectual property. In a society without law and order, someone could steal a man's original idea or concept and use it as their own, thus taking the freedom of expression and individuality away from someone else. Lessig states in Remix that "a free culture supports and protects creators and innovators," and this is ensured by the laws of intellectual property. Just becasue there are laws of intellectual property does not mean that you cannot learn from and use (with permission) the thoughts of another. For example, as I write this blog, the laws of intellectual property allow me to refer to the words of Lessig as long as it is approprioately quoted.